I hate all the attention that gets paid to Palin's boobs. I think that, hey, we're women and we shouldn't have to hide them to be taken seriously.

That said, I'm gonna focus on her boobs, LOL. As a triathlete who is built similarly to Palin and spends a lot of time in running bras, I'm saying there's no way she's wearing one in that post-race pic. Her girls are too perky. And no woman I know would do a half-marathon in a regular, dare I say push-up, bra.

I have doubts, but we all need to let this one go, it's become a distraction and a credibility drifter. She was listed in the Storm Lake Running Club, the marathon's host, as a second place winner, in her age category. There is probably more to the story, but we should move on, to the more important stuff.

To clarify I know the anonymous commenter said she didn't run, but the idea was in peoples minds way before that. Where did that come from?

Part of the feeling that she wasn't running comes from the fact that when there was going to be a magazine spread about her running, she had to ask around if anyone had a running carriage she could use for Trig. A runner would have had one. It is in the emails.

I agree with others that she was at the event. She might have even run it. But that photo of her running amongst those other people is definitely photoshopped. I'm a graphic designer and I've photoshopped lots of photos so I know what they look like. The shadows on her body do not match the lighting of the rest of the photo. Her shoes have that pixelated look to them because whoever did the doctoring tried to sharpen up a blurry image of her feet in motion. Plus, just good ole' common sense is going to tell you that at least one runner in that photo would be looking at Palin, celebrity that she is, and absolutely no one is even glancing her way.

I'm a runner too and I also never wear cotton. It gets heavy with sweat and doesn't breathe. Real runners who get the kind of times Palin says she does do not wear cotton t-shirts.

Just more stuff that makes you scratch your head and go hhhmmm.....

There has been too much focus on the image(s) of SP in the race. She may have been in the same picture with the runners, but look at the walkers and runners. The walkers have been walking for a while. They are not starting. If it was the start, they would be looking at the flag, not their feet. The runners are packed together as are the walkers. If the runners started before the walkers, the walkers would be just starting.

There were no spaces in the walking pack for the runners to get through. Those are two different pictures.

We can assume that some posing and manipulating was done. Greta seemed to want the joke for her headline of Sarah running.

This was not important, and it is not worth analyzing like the editing that went on with the "exposure" of ACORN. If someone fudged statistics for a small race in Iowa, it is not important.

Let's get into the speech where she cuts out corporate taxes and then removes loop holes that wouldn't be there if there were no taxes.

The tip-off is at the end, where she sweats on top of her shoulders and a bit up front, but the rest of the t-shirt is bone dry. No sweat underneath her armpits, no wet t-shirt from all the sweating along the way - the t-shirt flows loosely around her hips.
Also, too... her calfs are too skinny IMHO to be runners-calfs. A real runner would have rounded ones, because of all the muscle-build-up.

I hadn't seen this comment on IM broomfield thread:

Anonymous said...
Sarah can't "insulate" from the person who shares all this with me because, among other reasons too complicated to share right now, Sarah knows this person can ruin her if they REALLY wanted to talk. It's a strange dynamic but once Sarah is just a footnote in history and ALL the skeletons are out, much more will be clear about why certain people stayed on with Sarah, and so much more.

For the naysayers here...let me be absolutely candid with you--as I said previously, I TRULY do not give a fat penguin's poop chute if you don't believe me. I am not going to beg and plead for you to believe me because I honestly do not care. Yes, I posted near the times when other stuff was going on BUT...I posted details about said "stuff" days before it came up on other sites. I believe that alone lends enough credence to what I say.

Regarding the comment "did Chuck write the press release"...that is completely asinine reasoning--you think because it was in a "press release", it must be true and accurate? May I remind you that Sarah and her staff are the ones who wrote or provided the information? They also put out a "press release" about Troopergate and its resultant "investigation"; per the press release Sarah was cleared of wrongdoing. Just because something is in a press release doesn't mean it's true.

Again, for those who doubt me--no hard feelings. Just skip right on by my posts.


I'm leaving on the last leg of my trip, so this will likely be the last time I can reply/post for a bit. I will be seeing relatives I haven't gotten to visit in years, so I am really going to focus on enjoying their company.

Have a great Sunday and holiday everyone.
7:57 AM

Is this the same woman who dropped out of the 5K Turkey Trot in Kennewick, Washington in 2009, because she wanted to avoid the crowds that were waiting for her at the end?

Sarah's lack of fitness has been discussed many times. She did that turkey trot thing a couple years ago and had to bow out after less than 1/2 mile. She said it was so as to not "take attention away" from the other runners but that was malarkey. She had a whole huge group waiting for her at the finish line which she knew about yet she just left them there!
Also there were several reports by mccain's campaign mgr about Sarah "running" during the campaign. Once she realized they were NOT going to let her go running without bodyguards she faked a cramp or a twisted ankle or something. And during her reality (ha) show people said she ran just long enough to get the shot they needed. It was Steve Schmidt I think who talked about the campaign non running stuff and I don't remember who said she didn't really run on SPA but I will see if I can find the article. I think it might have been in huff post.

I'm trying to think of any account I have heard of which mentions her running for any real distance with absolutely no question she did it. I may have just missed it, but I honestly can't think of one.

i wish one of the people in that picture with her would come forward and tell everyone whether she was there or not there. if one of them didn't see her then she was not there. but i agree she could have registered and she could have "finished."

I'm gearing up for my first half marathon next month and admit I was envious when I saw her time. (And good for you on your past successes. I must be crazy because we're the same age and I got into running two years ago.)

I was suspicious about her being all bundled up in the first picture. I checked the weather in Storm Lake and it looks like it was in the upper 40s in the morning -- not particularly brutal, especially for someone from Alaska. I live in South Texas and ran a 10K in February where the temps at the start were in the 30s (we had an ice storm two days before). I was dressed similar to how Palin was in the first picture (minus the cotton garments -- what a rookie move).
Like you, I would never wear cotton, even for a 5K.

I kept thinking about Elisabeth Hasselbeck saying she has "jumped in" a number of marathons and half marathons.

Made me wonder if Palin did the same. It *was* called the "Jump Right In and Run." Hmmmm.

I also find this whole thing dubious because she dropped out of a 5K two years ago because she didn't want to deal with the crowds at the finish line. Riiiiiight.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Psychresearchrn/sarah-palin-quits-turkey_n_372818_35396920.html

I have no idea how Palin achieved her half-marathon time or even how she was registered or whose idea it was or how they pulled it off. Just like I don't know how the Trig hoax was pulled off. I agree with anonfornow that the relevant bit is that Palin went to some trouble to make a point about her physical abilities.

It's so all for us, isn't it? Because if you saw the Tea Party crowd, that's not exactly a running enthusiast bunch by their appearance. And Mitt, Michele, and Rick are doing real running and can't be bothered.

The real bummer is that Palin will have to do it all again some place else to get a medal like Laura's!

Brad, you keep saying the photo is legit and I keep shaking my head. Other self-proclaimed experts are posting that it's definitely photoshopped. Sure looks fake to me. Body parts are missing. I'm trying to recall in all my athletic years when my shoulders sweated profusely.

You see, Brad, I just want some part of this marathon business to be fake. I want Palin to be deceptive, lying and sneaky in all things she does. So when you look at the photo, her positioning, no one looking at her, the very impressive time, sweaty shoulders and so on, well that supports what I want to think. Lies as always. Lies and fabrications are the default setting of all things Palin.

This could have been avoided. A not so suspect picture could have been taken and published without hoopla. Maybe one with her in the pack. But no, we get this picture that looks like it was pasted on.

Maybe you're wrong, Brad. Because I gotta tell you, Brad, just because you say so at several different sites, repeatedly, doesn't mean I believe you.

FROM THE IMMORAL MINORITY BLOGPOST AT 9:00AM

in the original fake photo here is proof it is photoshopped--lots of it:

Yes, there is a woman in green, next to her someone with white tshirt walking, then next to her woman in white shirt and pink headband has NO LEFT foot. She has a stump coming out of her short.

Also, in the front, there is a guy in red bandanna. To his left is a man in long-sleeved white shirt with grey stripe on it; that man is missing his back leg and hamstrings of his front thigh. It's not that he is taking such a wide stride that you can't see either, that would be impossible--it is that some of his leg was chopped out, there is a wheel or something where his thigh or shorts should be, some strainge black curved line.

Also the woman next to the guy in the red bandanna, you can see her hair behind his head, she is short and you can see part of her back or arm barely, but she has no legs, that's an invisible body.

Also the woman in the red shorts and black shoes with both feet together, she would fall flat on her face if she was running like that, no way for feet to be caught in same place unless she's hopping to the finish line.

Also palin is taller than all the men, and she is very short. Plus I don't think her thights are that big. So, first don't think that is actually Palin, but someone else, but also this picture was CLEARLY photoshopped, otherwise why are peole missing body parts?

Several things jump out at me. First, in the picture her head is way bigger than the person closest to her. Second, at the end of the race she was wet at the neck and on top of her shoulders (WTF?) but not under the arms. She just ran 13 eight min miles in about 65% humidity and no under-arm sweat? Third, the media whore suddenly decided to go incognito? Not likely. Fourth, no runners around her at the finish. Fifth, no personal accounts from anyone who ran near her during the race. Sixth, no pictures except the wonky one and the finish. No video. Seventh, no pictures from paparazzi of her training. Eighth, coming from an Alaska climate to Iowa's heat and humidity would frikking kill her. Something just doesn't smell right.

why is everything about this person so weird? Why does a seemingly harmless thing to do like running in a race end up looking so faked? I understand our suspicions but can't they come up with a normal looking picture?

Maybe she ran the race--or part of it with a person who really can run fast--and there wasn't a good picture of her running and they faked one. I have no idea.

I just worry that obsessing over this undermines our more serious pursuits of her fabrications.

Here's a thought. If commenting that she's been looking like a wreck and is probably heavily medicated caused her to run this race--what else can we get her to do?

Bob, you are right. We are drawing lines around her life by commenting on stuff that bothers her. Maybe that is the best reason to continue, but I think that is akin to bullying.

So she ran half of a half-marathon. Sort of like being a half-term governor. Something Sarah Palin has experience at.

That does not make her fit for any public office. She lacks the intellectual stamina required for serving the public. She also has far too many issues - she cannot out-distance them in the long run [no pun intended]. So I am not the least distracted by her sideshow in Iowa; at some time or another, she will have to answer a multitude of questions.

Class E--I like your idea about the Class Action Suit from former Palinbots. Any legal people out there think that this could work and do we have any seriously p.o.'d former Palinbots?

Also one of the "tiny runners" to Palin's left is missing a foot.

The odd lies of Sarah Palin make everything about her suspect, including the story of this race. But all the story means to me is that Palin spent yet another couple of hours devoted, honestly or dishonestly, to herself and her image, when she could have been being a mother to Trig. Am I being old fashioned? Or am I behind in the news...is it pretty much a given that Palin is not involved with Trig's care, even when she's at home? Anyway, this is a woman with THREE minor kids, one of them with extra needs, and she acts like she the freest bird in the tree.

Palin doesn't know if she wants to be a madonna or whore, an elite or valley trash, a politician or a celebrity, intellectual or ignorant, an adult or a child, a candidate or sideshow, athletic or fragile. She's a ditherer like I have never seen. How any thinking person could want her in charge of their lives is so far beyond me it hurts my brain to try to understand. I'm really sick of the b...ch. Trying to find the truth of this silly race would do me in for good.

I'm very cautious about crying Photoshop every time I see something that doesn't quite add up in a picture. I generally feel that the photos we're looking at are too small to allow for definitive conclusions. Blowing up a 72 pixels per inch image does not generally elucidate.

However, I've been looking a long time at the "Palin running" photograph, and it finally dawns on me what seems strange about it. It's not so much Palin's figure in the foreground, odd as she may appear, but more the runners in front and the walkers in the rear.

The walkers are moving relatively slowly or just getting started--some are elderly and/or a little heavy--while many of the runners a few feet in front of them seem to be at full stride. How can this be?

The runners do not appear to be a step or two out from taking a standing start. They look like they are already well into their stride, and not bunched together as if at the start of the race. How did they get in that position only a few feet in front of walkers?

I await more pictures.

Photoshopped or not, one thing I noticed is that the gray shirt she has on in the first photo under the red has a collar. The one in the photo with the couple is just a plain tee without a collar.

Or maybe she changed into the neckless tee at the end. Then again, maybe she had on three layers of clothing.

Given that it is Sarah, who can say for sure?

OK. In the first pic, with the red sweater, she is wearing something with a grey collar underneath it (like in a 'greay shirt'). At the end of the race, she is wearing a grey crew-neck t-shirt.
Where on her route (and especially WHEN!) did she have time to not only take off the red top and the sweatband under the visor, but also change her grey top to the t-shirt??? Wonderwoman alright!

Link to the Nick Broomfield post (you have to copy and paste from this comment):

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-about-nick-broomfields-documentary.html?commentPage=2

Would a serious runner wear so much eye makeup? I am a swimmer, and of course wear 0 makeup when I work out. What would happen to smokey eye makeup after 13 miles?

THANKS, FLOYD! ;)

@FrostyAK, that is interesting about the teammate's name matching a pack employee. Someone by the name of "Julie" sometimes comments on Palingates, IM, etc. regarding what a gosh-darned great gal Sarah is and how we don't know what we're talking about. Probably just a coincidence, but a funny one.

Pic. No comment other than look closely.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannahlcampbell/6112853629/sizes/l/in/set-72157627468163637/

Also too:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannahlcampbell/6112853629/in/set-72157627468163637

Oh. One more thing: I thought she is a bit 'wonkey-eyed'?

@ FrostyAK --
Hey, is that our girl or NOT?

ozmud, those white marks on the pants are on both legs. see the runner's world pics - she is wearing the same pants.

as someone else noted re: the flickr pic with the 3 women: I also thought it was peculiar that the quitter had tons of sweat on her shoulders yet her bangs were completely dry. she doesn't have the headband on at the finish line, so obviously she removed it sooner - which means her bangs should have been stuck to her face.

Something I forgot to mention, unless there is a photo other than the one of SP looking at her watch to check her time after the 1/2 marathon that she "ran? hmmm?" any underarm sweat would not be visible as her upper arms are laying against her torso, obscuring her sides down to her waist.

I'm pretty weary of the photo analysis of the Iowa run since Brad has unequivocally written that he doesn't see any signs of photoshopping in the marathon pics.

Doesn't mean she didn't cheat to come in second though.

Searchformore: You asked, "Her not running comes from a witness account in one of the books or something?"

Sorry if someone else already mentioned this, but one of the reasons is that in one of her released e-mails, she asked her staff to find a baby jogger for a photo shoot. If she jogs all the time (and takes her baby), wouldn't she have one? The runners (and walkers) I know all have baby joggers.

"There's a white stain on her pants that mysteriously shifts from one leg to the other during the race."

I don't think that's a stain. I think it's part of the pants, and it's on both legs.

Same pants as here:

http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2011/08/will-she-or-wont-she-klown-makes-call.html

and here:

http://www.glamourvanity.com/celebrities/running-for-office-literally/

(which I think is a little odd in itself, considering these shots were taken in the summer of 09 -- I have 3 pairs of black yoga pants I wear for walking, which I do a lot -- none of the 3 pairs is from 2 years ago).

@Frosty--that does not look like SP in those photos. Therefore, SP did not run in this race, it is a double.

Also, people should check out the post at OZmud. She makes good points.

Oh you doubters. This is the same woman who filmed a reality TV show last year. Although she claimed to have gone moose hunting with her father, they needed an expert guide and five shots to bring down that poor animal. We never did see a shot of Sarah shooting and the caribou falling in the same frame. It was: Sarah shoots, next frame, down goes the caribou, next frame Sarah still doesn't understand that someone shot the animal for her.

Sarah has made other claims that were meant to define her personality (but not her qualifications for office). She said that she was a hockey mom, but by the time she said it at the 2008, Track had been in the Army for a year.

I do believe that Sarah ran in that race. I just don't believe that started with everyone else and finished with everyone else. It was called "The Jump In Half Marathon," and I think that Sarah jumped in for her photo opportunity. It might have been in an empty or not very photogenic spot, so they took Runner-Sarah and shopped her into a more race-like setting. The picture looks and feels fake. But, almost everything about Sarah also seems contrived.

Here is this famous person who had just come to town for two days, and no one in the race paid any attention to her. There is not one photo from the sidelines from any of her fans. No one recognized the woman wearing the bright red shirt when everyone else wore white. She wore makeup. When sweat pours down from the hairline and forehead, it ruins the eye make up, yet Sarah was ready for her photos at the end of the race. She doesn't sweat under her arms. What antiperspirant does she use?

This is supposed to be a symbol of Sarah RUNNING. She doesn't need to tease everyone for another month to make an official announcement. If we need to know what a good job Sarah will do organizing a campaign, we only have to look at the days before the Iowa event, when Sarah canceled because Christine O'Donnell was also invited. Then Christine was out and Sarah was in. In, out, in out, that kind of immature theatrics is what a Palin Campaign will look like. She didn't secure the necessary permits for her appearance in New Hampshire. There are questions as to whether she really visited the World War I Memorial Museum or just posed for a quick photo op outside.

Sarah is a figment and a creation of her own imagination. She is all image and no substance. She is heavily made up and ready for her closeup. She is manufactured and fake. The race is only the latest example of Sarah's Smoke and Mirrors. Pay no attention, there's nothing behind the curtain.

I read that Palin "ran around" the main group of runners so that she could get ahead of them... (cuz, you know, they're all so slow and she's so speedy fast).

Could that first, seriously weird looking, image be from this alleged event?

It's interesting that she's much sweatier in the photo with the three women than she is with the man and woman, who posted it on their own blog. I wonder which was supposed to have been taken first.

It really is not SP in those photos. Just not her. So funny.

I believe the woman in the flickr photos has...an attached earlobe. You know, the kind that doesn't curve upward at the base. Ms. Palin does not have this characteristic.

Holy crap. The photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannahlcampbell/6112853629/sizes/o/in/set-72157627468163637/ (original size) is incredible.

Certainly Palin participated in the event. Certainly multiple photos were taken. Certainly she did some running. But a speedy 13+ miles?

Perfect makeup, penciled brows, eyeliner, eye shadow, mascara, lip gloss...and a sweat-soaked T-shirt. Simply not plausible.

Yet the MSM (not to mention Joe McG. and Phil G.) swallowed this latest deception, hook, line, and sinker. The Grifter wins -- or at least places! -- once again.

ann_s , Melly, NSG, Venefica,

I have a hard time believing you really believe that. four people in a row posting that they don't think a picture of Palin is really her. Come on now. That's just a bit weird.

Just in case your actually being serous, which I kind of doubt actually, just look at this photo again.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannahlcampbell/6112853629/sizes/l/in/set-72157627468163637/

see the girl on the left in pink. using the rules of your photographic analysis she has one ear bigger than the other and each connects to her head in a different way.

Sorry that was a bit sarcastic. Don't beat me up. ...just saying though. :-)

NSG
Detached earlobes can become attached after a facelift.

As much as I believe that Palin is a pathological liar and a fake through and through, it does seem implausible that her stunt double would pose for close-ups, and for so many of them.

Unless...you don't think...could she be pulling a double-fake-Jedi mind trick by enlisting an impersonator who's just as foolish as she is....?

Naah. Nobody is THAT stupid.

Okay gals/guys. The full earlobe isn't visible in the photo and it's impossible to determine whether the lobe is attached or freely hanging. The shape of the ear is visible and it's Sarah's ear...and her nose, mouth, eyebrows, teeth...

Is Palin wearing depends in this pic? http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannahlcampbell/6113399472/in/set-72157627468163637/

I keep seeing comments which claim Palin's running partner (Julie Marks) is somehow involved with SarahPAC but no one has provided a link to where that comes from.

I've searched the most recent SarahPAC financial disclosure form at the FEC (covering January to June of this year) and there's no Julie Marks.

I've also Googled "Julie Marks"+Palin and found nothing.

Has anybody seen any proof, or is this another "Well, I heard that ..." rumor ?

Re: the marathon ...

I think the real story is:

Yes, Sarah was there and yes, she ran -- at least enough to get pix for a pre-planned "Sarah Runs in Iowa" story.

I think her media people came up with that idea a couple weeks ago (when she was registered for the marathon) as a way of glossing over the fact that she STILL hasn't announced her intentions. (And didn't she claim a few weeks back that she would make a major announcement on 9/3 ?)

What better way to distract than with a light-hearted "run" pun story that also reminds everybody that she can toss off a marathon ... and then go make a speech ...

She can beat Obama ...
Yeah, the White House is in her reach !

Cause she's a WOOOOO-man ... ! ....

(Sorry.)

Unfortunately, her energy was weird all weekend and (no sexism intended here) she looked very haggard and rundown -- which is, I believe, one reason there are so few pix and no video anywhere of the marathon -- people simply DID NOT recognize her until after. Since they'd gotten the pic, I imagine she and Toad got outta there ASAP so she could rest up.

From Des Moines KCCI, Channel 8 site:

"Organizers said Palin was gracious and had a good time. They noted that hotel staff the night before didn't even realize who she was."

http://www.kcci.com/news/29079600/detail.html#ixzz1X91G4hSl

I found a slideshow of last year's "Jump Right In and Run" event which appears to have been held in the same venue and may offer an answer to why Sarah was alone at the finish line: the marathon was held in the small town of Storm Lake, Iowa (population 10,600) and simply wasn't heavily attended. Due to her tired appearance (plus big sunglasses and visor at the start), lack of energy, and the fact that the runners had no reason to imagine Sarah Palin would be there, nobody recognized her. Maybe there will be more images that show her when the "Jump Right In and Run" site posts their pix.

slide show of 2010 "Jump Right In and Run" marathon =
http://blip.tv/storm-lake-running-club/jump-right-in-and-run-2010-4136568

If the running shot was, in fact, photoshopped (looks like it to me), it may only have been touch-up to enhance her -- hence the red shirt, brighter lighting -- in order to sell the earlier-mentioned "run" pun story.

But I really don't think the photoshopping question is terribly important.

The REAL story-within-a-story here is that something was definitely "up" --
whoever that was tottering around Iowa this past weekend, it certainly wasn't the Sarah Palin we've all come to know and loathe.

Detroit Free Press

<b>Tea partiers in N.H. want a simple answer from Palin: Are you running or not?</b>

Palin's New Hampshire appearance came amid rising frustration among Granite State Republicans and tea party activists over her hazy intentions.

A New Hampshire tea party leader couldn't hold back his frustration Sunday night at another rally hosted by the Tea Party Express.

"Once again it is time to determine -- are you here to sell books or are you here to run for president of the United States?" asked Corey Lewandowski, state director for Americans for Prosperity, a tea party ally.

"The people of New Hampshire deserve to know, are you serious? And if you are serious, then welcome to the race. And if you're not serious, get out of the way because we're going to elect a new president."

Did the Palins punk everybody! They love to do "stuff" like this. Then, later on, they read the blogs and laugh their heads off.

Tee hee...

On one continuum, this is small potatoes. On another, after all this time, it'd be way wonderful to PROVE she's lying and have the photo evidence that makes it for sure positive. I get the focus on the marathon.

At the same time, we can look for the real issue(s) for which this may be a deliberate distraction... as Obama says, his administration can do two things at once.

"I am aware that others here and on IM have claimed to be experts on photo analysis"

People on the internet claim many, many things. Dont be so gullible. Sometimes you just gotta use your brain.

O M G. USE YOUR BRAINS PEOPLE. Do you REALLY think Sarah spends time finding a woman who happens to look like her twin to fake a race photo op????? No matter the race, there are lots of people around. Sigh, nevermind. I'm wasting my breath.

This is the same as saying there are multiple Trigs floating around AK, DESPITE the vast numbers of visitors to the Palins home, the vast number of Palin friends and sheer observation that refutes this. (I'm speaking of present times, not in the spring of 08, but I have a point even back then as well. Too many people see them. Dont you think thered be rumors FLYING around AK if there were babyswappage? Instead, many people still believe Trig is hers.)

All this is as crazy as them using Bristol or WIllow standins. It simply doesn't happen. There are better things to cover in the Palin saga than over analyzing photos and making yourself look stupid.

Sorry for the rant, but I have low tolerance for ridiculousness. And I hate wasting time. There are important things to discuss and many outlets on which to discuss them. YET you people feel it's necessary to discuss a person's momentary look, sweat, and an anon comment to death.

Double sigh.

@anonfornow, Anon238 doesn’t have to be real in order for Sarah to THINK she could be real. Or even to think that WE think she’s real. That’s what’s sort of delicious about it.

Regarding the race, I was most intrigued about the possible Scientology connection:
http://training.fitness.com/open-talk/did-katie-holmes-really-do-ny-marathon-29066.html
Rumor Katie Holmes faked a marathon, with similar questions about her appearance.

Wouldn’t necessarily be a connection except for the Greta/John Coale link to Palin. One commenter said that Coale wouldn’t bother with Palin unless it benefitted Scientology in some way.

--------
In addition to all the other suspicious details about this race, just think back to how Sarah portrayed herself as a “runner” in “Runner’s World”: she wore pantyhose under her track shorts! She just doesn’t see how she comes across well enough to even fake things convincingly. [Sadly, the poverty of her disguises is “good enough” for the majority of observers, even someone who has been keeping tabs on her for a long time, like Phil Munger.]
--------

@akbright reminds us of her feigning participation in the Turkey Trot. Along those same lines, she made a big show of putting on her sneakers for an Autism walk, but left in an SUV after a few hundred yards! So why the emphasis on finishing NOW? Because they need to show her as being capable of finishing SOMEthing (it would be a first)!

@Ivyfree, that is a great story about Track and you relate it very well with all due skepticism!

@Brad, I tend to agree that the photos are not Photoshopped but that, just like with the Gusty photos, there is still a deception behind them and what they are meant to convey.

I am certain that she was there, but it’s quite obvious that the “finish line” photo with her insouciantly “checking her watch” is completely fraudulent. A real photo of a real fake.

@Tom, there are at least 5 or 6 photos of a water-dampened Palin posing with people after the race: they aren’t fake photos. She was there. Everyone is too quick to rush to Photoshop as an easy explanation, when it is in fact the most difficult to pull off. Much easier to waltz into a small-town race and take a few pics that imply you ran the whole course. Especially when the small town just happens to be that of the founder of Iowans4Palin. Mr. Adams is also a C4P’er.

@FrostyAK, good reminder about the fake bus tours. There is nothing about Mrs. Palin that is NOT falsified. THAT is the main reason that I disbelieve she ran this race for real, actually.

About the photo: when someone is running there is a point in each stride when both feet are off the ground; this happened to capture that moment.

@anonfornow, exactly: I’m not a runner or an athlete, but ”thrashing your guts” sounds to me like an unlikely description of dedicated running. In that same Hiking in Juneau video, after saying it was “so gorgeous here” she DODGED the host’s question about whether she had ever hiked up in the trails around the Mendenhall glacier (a huge tourist attraction, especially for outdoorspeople)… she just said “Mendenhall DOES have a trail system… I USUALLY run around here because I like running the hills. It kills me, that’s why I like it.” but then she said that “the hard-core runners around here find those trail systems and actually run up in the, up in the mountains”. So Palin obviously does not consider herself a hard-core runner. Funny for someone who runs half-marathons with that kind of time.

I get the distinct sensation from the exchange with Slone that Sarah had never even visited Mendenhall. Otherwise she would have talked more about it; it’s supposed to be an amazing place.
Starts at about 1:45 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIcb8MGYDn8

@mary, I believe “Julie” is the same troll as “Brooklyn” and I think she actually connects from that locale, although she goes by many different names. It’s the same person as “Dakotan4Life” on the previous thread—all about how happy the family is and how we “can’t know” unless we are the actual person, etc. She pretends to know the family. She’s delusional, and a very prolific commenter.

@myrna nichols “Sarah is a figment and a creation of her own imagination.” Exactly!

@guest, re. speech in NH… She’s talking about herself! LOL.

Keep in mind that it was half of a half-marathon. Her partner, Julie whatever-her-last-name-is, ran the other half. Still a feat for a woman of Sarah Palin's age and abilities.

But it was all a kind of joke: "see, Sarah's running!" And a big distraction from her bizarre behavior earlier in the weekend and from the crazy speech the night before.

Only corporate America should be happy about the big proposal in her speech - eliminating corporate taxes and paying for the loss of income by closing loopholes - now also being spouted by Michele (one l) Bachmann. This was all for the big corporations that have been freed by the Supreme Court to buy elections big time. Now that the idea is being bandied about by more than one candidate, the not-so-bright "palinbots" and "tea bagger" crowd can latch onto it and Fox News will promote it as the ultimate solution. Who really cares about half of a half-marathon!

@gigi, the red-striped shoes are the same. You just see mostly stripes in the later photo because of the angle of her feet.

Two words: Rozie Ruiz

Remember this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Ruiz

@Lidia17

The only photo I said was fake was the first/original one at the race start. Which brings me to the half half marathon business. How does one manage to be begin and end the race.

I've seen the Hannah photoa and of course they're real. The first, no sir.

I hope she didn't run the whole race and yet accepted a finish time and allowed the results to be published. That would establish for doubters a pattern. The original photo and the sneaking in and out are what made the whole thing suspect. Otherwise there wouldn't be such scrutiny by the likes of us.

Wasn't that (1st picture) the Emeryville marathon?

"...I hate wasting time. There are important things to discuss and many outlets on which to discuss them. YET you people feel it's necessary to discuss a person's momentary look, sweat, and an anon comment to death. "

And you come here to snark at people you think are ridiculous.

"Who's the fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?"
- Obi-wan Kenobi

Maybe a runner (which I am not) will have a valid explanation for the following...

PHOTO OBSERVATIONS -- COMPARING S’s photo (http://ozmud.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/spia-06.jpg) with two other crossing-finish-line photos (female and male runners at http://www.flickr.com/photos/hannahlcampbell/6112851991/in/set-72157627468163637/):

1) RED TAPE at the finish line is gone in S’s photo

2) Notice the POSITION of the finish-line-POST on our right (with a concrete bottom, to the right of S as we look at her photo): it is on top of the white line and with one set of little flags in S’s photo, and very different in the photo with a female runner…The post was most likely moved by the time SP’s picture was ‘taken’

3) SP is crossing the finish line along the ‘groove’ in concrete, while the other two runners are to the left of the same groove (otherwise, they would be too close to the post)

It will be interesting to look at the additional pictures that the running club will post soon!

PS I posted this on Oz Mudflats too.

Having no sweat on her face. Being totaly unwinded. She doens't look at all winded.

She has been sweating a lot in Iowa. At the state fair she was sweating in her face, at the dinner sweating, and after running all that way her face has no sweat on it? Perfect except for some water on her upper torso. No need to catch her breath, no sweat.

I'm winded after walking fast that distance. But I don't play let us pretend, or do photo ops.

There is a Julie who writes to the blogs saying how wonderful Palin is and defending her. I think her partner is that Julie. Why isn't she writing in telling everyone how great Sarah runs, what fantastic shape she is in.

O.K. Julie time to log in.

We are waiting with baited breath.

On another blog, fixated with the distraction:
Sarah WANTED the photo to look altered, because a REAL unaltered photo of her running in a crowd wouldn't have attracted this much attention.

Oh.
I see.

I don't know if she actually ran, or if the photo is or isn't photoshopped.

The few things that did stand out for me. In her red shirt, feet floating in air feet shot, her foot would have hit the higher curb when it came down and she would have stumbled.

The lack of sweating on her face and not being at all winded (Rosie Ruiz type of run).

Her long history of fraud for fake photo ops.

I'm waiting for the published photos of the race. She would be easy to spot. Though to date I have seen two doubles for Palin in my area. One looked older, and one younger and slimmer.

My husband could have been a double for Louis Jourdon, and my sister for Doris Day. We ALL have doubles. Though I think this was Sarah Palin in the photo shots. I only wonder if she did run it all or did her usual three shell monte tricks.

Well enough of this nonsense for me today. It will be whatever it is. She either did or didn't run in the race. Not that it matters. Except that it shows how people will analyze every last detail when it comes to this fraud.

I think she has lost her political steam and can't possibly run, lack of support. People are on to her and resent her will I or won't I routine. Her ego can't take losing.

The things one learns.

Evidently botox injected into the armpits stops you from sweating. Never knew.

I am with Brad on this one. Not only is he probably technically correct, but the whole issue is just a pile of distracting silliness in the first place. I thought this was supposed to be the INTELLECTUAL blog. A couple of days ago, we were discussing Palin's direct connections with the CNP and Bud Paxson, and now we are discussing body doubles, running shoes, and more relentless photo analysis. Let's just say that Sarah is guilty of all of it. What does that mean outside the fact that she is a compulsive liar and she like to play games with the truth? Politically, Mittens can outrun her in his flip-flops. Let's get back to the serious issues, please.

Yes, I know I am a bigheaded blowhard, but at least I know how to TERRIFY the potential candidate. With this marathon of photo analysis and endless discussion of drivel, we are just making her laugh her head off at how easily we can be distracted.

Floyd, Brad, Keigal...Well said.

Sarah can run, but she can't hide !!

Here today and gone tomorrow?

The LA Times for Sep 4:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/04

At the bottom shows one item under NEWS at the bottom:
Sarah Palin runs half-marathon incognito in Iowa By Robin Abcarian
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/04/news/la-pn-palin-marathon-20110904

That link now gives "Page Not Found". Have they retracted their article? It was there yesterday.

I emailed Robin Abcarian to find out. Too early to hear back yet.

The article's still available. Just moved links:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-palin-marathon-20110904,0,1357976.story

I'm sorry, I should have included this link to an even juicier story involving McCain and Paxson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Iceman

People continue to ask why any of this matters. Here's a partial answer:

IF the running pic is photoshopped;

IF the running pic is just a photo op;

IF she was at the start and the finish and didn't run the entire race (Rosie Ruiz style);

IF she poured water on her shirt to make it look like she ran the entire way

IF she is using doppelgangers, ad infinitum

IF ANY or all of the above, then it fits nicely into the picture of the lying, grifting, cheat that we all know she is. Her sociopathy.

"How does that fit with Babygate?", you ask. If she would fake a 1/2 marathon, then what else might she fake?

Would she be able, on her own, to come up with such complex machinations? We know she couldn't. It's the men behind the curtain that have been pulling her strings and guiding all of the lies for a very long time that need to be exposed. This fake 'race' is just one more piece of the puzzle, IMO.

One last aside about the picture. I don't know if or if it isn't photoshopped, but Gryphen has the photo with two Palins (one a bit smaller but the exact same image). The larger Palin image behind is the one passed around on the grass and she always looks too big to me somehow. She is petite but the woman next to her would be 4 feet tall, and she herself is a petite woman. The second Palin image in front is placed on the pavement and is a bit smaller and looks like it fits into the running group better, except behind her she wouldn't be running on pavement. I now lean towards thinking this was indeed a photoshopped picture.

It never seemed right. It is the false placement of the superimposed Palin image that makes it so wrong. Her size in relation to others size. They misestimated.

@ Floyd:

I, too, would like to return to the Paxson issue.

What astounds me about the entire "relationship" Paxson, the wealthy GOP Christian broadcaster, had with McCain over the years was Paxson's obvious intent to control, and compromise McCain.

For example, as reported by the Washington Post on Feb. 23, 2008, Paxson had just gleefully contradicted McCain's sworn testimony -- precisely when McCain was interviewing Palin for the VP spot (her DC conference visit -- the one where no one noticed she was 7 months pregnant).

McCain, as we know, wanted Lieberman as his running mate, but this totally freaked out the Dominionist right wing. Wing-nuts like Paxson were pulling out all the stops to get "one of their own" as the VP (i.e. A STRONG RIGHT-TO-LIFE candidate like Palin--whom the Dominionists had been grooming for power since at least 2006.)

Paxson, in Feb 2008, seemed to be going out of his way to jerk McCain's chain, and force him to choose Palin. Here's how the Washington Post reported it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html

I also can't help thinking Paxson and his operatives were behind the New York Times expose on the McCain-Iseman affair.

But something happened after McCain interviewed Palin on or about the 23rd of Feb, that made Paxson call the expose off.

I think this was when McCain finally succumbed to Paxson's blackmail and secretly agreed on Palin as his VP choice.

Once all the details were settled upon, Palin announced her "pregnancy" on March 5th.

@ Bobcat Logic

Part of the Fundies' "grooming" of Sarah Palin for high office was their declaration that she was "the new Queen Esther."

I just did some searches on the "Queen Esther" meme and learned that the Dominionist Right also, at various times, declared Carrie PreJean, and, before that, Katherine Harris (remember her from the 2000 Florida recount?) to be the new "Queen Esther."

Banyan: Nice work - yup, they were casting about for someone they could largely control and count on.

The reason I think the pic of Palin is legit is because any graphic artist skilled enough to get the highlights correct on her clothing would have deepened the shadows under her front foot to keep it from looking as if she's floating.

Staged? Yes. Photo shopped? No.

Yeah! @Brad,Bobcat Logic & Banyan

Yup, that's what I think also. I've always felt that the date SP chose to announce the pregnancy, 3/6/08, was one of the biggest tells. As we all know, it was the day after McCain got the nomination. That was the signal for her that the hoax/game was on.

I also assumed that the Eisemen affair was perhaps a "honey trap."

thx Brad.

What tipped me off was that Palin's hair, above the visor, is the same washed-out color as the rest of runners. Hair, as you know, can be real tricky to mess with, so it was just best left alone.

What all this nonsense says to me is that Palin thinks she can get away with ANYTHING, and she can! Photoshopped or staged, that first photo is Odd with a capital "O". The final photos seem to be real, but also "faked" in that the "sweat" doesn't make sense and her hair is not wet and her make-up is in tact.

I don't buy body double, as the picture also shows Todd with her and some family and he sure looks real. He is holding her red sweater. I had been wondering what had happened to that garment. I asked my husband, who was a runner, if people just discarded clothing along the route when racing, and he said sometimes, but not often. Was Todd running along side her in order to collect her discards?

Finally, I'm curious: how does everyone (or anyone?) know that she was wearing cotton? Don't they make poly t-shirts? Just wondering. It's a good point, but I don't know what the "tell" was that her clothing was cotton.

While this was sort of a fun exercise (pun intended), I hope we soon return to the more serious issues. There are other lies to expose about her, and I'm sure there will be new ones. The temptation to "get" her on this one is strong, because we think there will be more evidence, but the same motivations exist in the larger political arena to try and keep this quiet. Therefore, I'd rather we concentrate on the biggest lies that have a greater chance to take her down (politically, not literally) than this one, which is minor in the long run.

Namaste, my friends.

@Litbrit, Bobcat Logic, & Floyd Orr:

I'm thinking out loud here...

In researching the relationship between Paxson, McCain, and the Palin pick (which I agree was orchestrated on or about 2-23 to 2-28, 2008 when Palin & McCain met in DC & the Iseman story conveniently disappeared from the Times), I suggest we also throw in a potential connection to Franklin Graham.

Graham has a large Samaritan's Purse compound with a 3,000' airstrip in Port Alsworth, Alaska, and could possibly have been a conduit for the 'delivery' of the agreed upon right-to-life "prop baby" (forgive my using that odious term). Per my research, Port Alsworth is 188 air miles SW of Anchorage on Lake Clark. And we know Graham has a mini-fleet of aircraft.

Here's some info about Graham leaning on McCain re the VP pick (3rd paragraph):

http://www.adn.com/2008/09/20/531723/kopp-hiring-proved-palins-fundamentalist.html

It's quite obvious that Paxson and Graham share the same religious & political goals. Paxson cooked up the Palin faux pregnancy scheme, and Graham willingly provided the transport? Perhaps even "Dr." Gina Loudon in St. Louis had the ability to locate the perfect Trig. So, as Brad suggests, complicity at the highest level, namely the hogtied presidential candidate who desperately wanted to win at any cost. No wonder the State of Alaska websites were scrubbed of any photos.

Although faking the run is trivial, it is also part and parcel of the pattern. It is my belief that Sarah has engaged in sleight-of-hand fakeries probably since she was a child and now it is a way of life and how her brain operates. (We dropped in on the pregnancy hoax, which is not trivial.) We aren't like that so we still register shock when we encounter yet another example. I think it is just how she conducts her life and Todd and her family members have adjusted to it and enable it and participate in it. They just are not used to having us as an audience.

Consider this: any time in the future that people express doubt about her running abilities, there will always be someone out there who will raise the -didn't she run a marathon? - meme. Quarter marathons and half marathons will morph into full marathons in record time and they will have newspaper articles to which to refer.

She layers and layers those types of memes, trivial ones so you won't notice the bigger ones. Plant enough doubt so no one ever really knows and those who support you don't stop believing. So that when some photo appears of her with Paxson or some other Dominionist Apostle they can go on offense and claim it was photoshopped or staged or somehow set up. Since she has already established the pattern, it will just get brushed off.

It would also explain why Mr. & Mrs. Greta VS glommed on to her right from the get go; her "talents" and her gender could be turned into an ATM, compatible with how Scientology operates, too, I would think.

In a funny kind of twisted way, anti-Palin bloggers and commenters and critics (including anon238) have supplanted supporters she has lost along the political wayside who have moved on and no longer pay attention to her. She craves attention and I have found that those who have a deep longing for attention, who never quite get their fill, will take any and all attention, even negative attention, because even that gives them the emotional payoff for which they are looking.

Sorry to get all pop psychy on you. Back to our regularly scheduled program. :)

Ozmud has a great sleuthing article about the 1/2marathon grifter! Turns out, she DID finagle her way into a medal, and cheated a deserving woman out of her hard-earned one!

In case you haven't looked at the course map, it is a double-loop-back type with the start/finish in the middle, at least one actual cross-over point, and multiple races (half, full, 5K, and maybe a relay) run at the same time on the course - in other words, lots of choke points where runners may have to pass walkers, and also many many opportunities to take shortcuts, for what that is worth.

There are likely multiple finish chutes at the end for different races. (The race number or the color of the tag usually indicates whether the runner is finishing a half, a relay, etc., so seeing pics of other runners finishing in a different chute is not surprising.)

She was there - as to whether she ran the whole thing start to finish or took the risk of being videoed cutting corners - well, we're talking about Sarah here.

Bush the younger ran some pretty good times in races here in Austin while he was Gov., if I recall, of course he started in front of the pack and surrounded with a phalanx of security - none of that silly jumping into the grass to get around the granny pack for him.

Meanwhile, this is what is going on in my neck of the woods:
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/files/2011/09/Fire_Austin-skyline.jpg

@ Heidi3

I think you are right about Graham being involved, as well as "Dr." Gina Louden.

There is evidence that the hoax was devised around 2005-6, and possibly well before then.

Ruffles did happen along the way, and that may have been part of the plan as well -- to provide a back-up story as to why Sarah faked a pregnancy if the hoax ever were to come out. To fake a pregnancy cover for one's daughter would seem more noble than to fake it for the political benefit of the GOP-Fundies.

Paxson has a long history of involvement in GOP dirty tricks -- the swift-boating of Kerry, for example. Some of his activities (like taking Saudi royalty out of Las Vegas post 9/11 on his jet) suggest a CIA connection, as well.

It seems that someone in a very high place has also assigned Paxson the job of neutralizing and compromising McCain at every turn.

Graham may have been involved in the deep planning to use such a DS baby hoax to enhance the credentials of the 'Queen Esther' du jour, when and if it became useful politically for the Fundies.

Graham's location in Alaska was perfect for allowing him to act locally and behind the scenes to "groom" and "foster" Palin.

Graham is also reputed to have lived a rather fast and lawless life in Alaska before reverting to his Fundie Christian upbringing, which ultimately proved more profitable. Perhaps, Graham's involvement with the Palins began around the prostitution ring in which Todd was allegedly involved.

I look forward to hearing more from Shailey Tripp on this one. From what she has said so far, the purpose of this ring was to infiltrate multi-national organizations and businesses for purposes of espionage and blackmail. This is right up the alley of the Fundies, and of people like Rupert Murdoch, who is also in this somewhere, I suspect.

Paxson may have entered the hoax when McCain's compliance was needed.

Heidi3 (et al): interesting thoughts! Ruffles born early to Bristol, official "Trig," aka blue-sweater baby, brought in later as a prop. This fits my own preferred scenario, i.e., that Ruffles was Bristol's child, I'm guessing by Keith Johnston, while the Trig presented from the RNC onward was the prop.
I'm tripping over something, though: how a scheme hatched in smoke-filled rooms, quite possibly before 2007, meshes with a knocked-up daughter who just happens to produce a DS baby. I know people have theorized that Ruffles had FAS, not DS, but I believe medical experts have chimed in to the contrary. A borrowed-Trig plan would have taken time: if Bristol turns up pregnant and amnio shows DS, why arrange to borrow a baby? And wouldn't that be WAY too much of a coincidence, if the adopt-a-prop plan was hatched much earlier? If there is a DS baby at hand the only reason to find another one would presumably be because Ruffles turned out to be too fragile (not expected to survive?) to be a good prop. But that wouldn't have been known until he was born, February...maybe as early as Dec '07. I don't see how all of this fits together. Heaven help me & my tinfoil hat, but the "snowflake" baby theory, as far out there as it is, actually does make sense.

@ jk
speaking of "snowflake' babies -- this blog post from yesterday's Daily Kos outlines some of the weird possibilities medical technical has created for parenthood -- and for fraud.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/06/1013904/-Surrogacy-and-Baby-Selling-in-a-Globalizing-World:-Whats-Next?via=search

The Paxson connection has always stood out to me because of Trig's middle name. I figured Sarah probably owes that guy something big. Him helping with the 'delivery' in some way is a very likely scenario.

I think the lie about Sarah knowing Trig had DS through an amnio was exactly that, and that's why she's repeated it and gotten it wrong.

I don't think they did an amnio on any pregnancy of Bristol's, whether Ruffles, Trig, Tripp, or other. It's possible that Trig's real birth mother had one and as a result decided to give her child up for adoption, or loan, or whatever it was that Palin did to obtain that baby.

Trig HAD to have DS. It was essential that Sarah appear to have known about it before he was born, and crucial for her to appear to have CHOSEN to have a baby she knew had DS - to show that, even under what some would consider extremely tough circumstances (four kids, seemingly busy Governor, potential VP pick, all that time in church (!), and being an awesome mom, wife, daughter, runner, hunter, fishpicker - how can she - and while looking so flippin' hot! - do it all?) she was tough enough, and - most importantly! - pro-life enough to do it all.

Those religious operatives knew the pregnancy was fake, and planned that the baby would have DS, because it would be the royal flush in their anti-abortion circles. If all they needed was a baby from Sarah, they could have used any baby - they certainly didn't need to use an actual pregnancy.
They used a fake pregnancy, and a real DS baby, on purpose, to "prove" Palin was pro-life.

Wasn't it Frank Dobson who emailed SP to congratulate her for "really walking the walk"?

And did Palin ever say before April 18th '08 that she'd had an amnio? It seems to be an after-the-fact thing, only mentioned after Trig was presented.

@ Exp:Nov.05/08 - YES! To repeat your two spot-on points:

- - - - - - - - - -

(1) "Trig HAD to have DS. It was essential that Sarah appear to have known about it before he was born, and crucial for her to appear to have CHOSEN to have a baby she knew had DS..."

(2) "Those religious operatives knew the pregnancy was fake, and planned that the baby would have DS, because it would be the royal flush in their anti-abortion circles."


As many of us are surmising, I think we've arrived at "the motive". All of this was pointed to in Floyd's book, which must be why Anon 238 says Sarah is terrified of him.

So in my opinion, Ruffles aka Trig #1 is an ancillary player in this discussion. He/she is not even part of the end scheme. (I will agree that Ruffles' possibly unspeakable paternity may have sparked an initial panic.) Ruffles just 'happened', albeit at a devastating point in the arc of Sarah's political aspirations. The only true actors in this drama are Sarah, the 'obtained' Down Syndrome Trig, and the stage managers behind the scenes. There would be no logic in Sarah's faking a pregnancy just to cover for Bristol's Ruffles (although it could have been a good backup idea as jk suggests), when in fact Sarah turned right around and very publicly outed Bristol's next pregnancy with Tripp!

Trig #2 stands alone as the key card in the "royal flush" needed to sell the McCain/Palin ticket to the Fundie voters. It was diabolical and sick, and dangerously undermined our entire voting process.

Exp:Nov.05/08, and Heidi3: the theory makes all the sense in the world for the child now known as Trig (call him PT: Prop Trig). But I still trip over the knocked-up-daughter-producing-DS-baby as sheer coincidence, and right around the time of the planned hoax. It would be easier for me to believe that Palin created the Bristol pregnancy rumors to give herself cover with PT if need be. But this doesn't square with all of the evidence either, nor does it explain where Ruffles came from.
Okay, so let's see what I do believe: Bristol turns up pregnant in fall, 2007; baby (Ruffles) born prematurely some time between 12/07 and 2/08; Ruffles proclaimed extremely fragile, unlikely to survive; Palin announces she is pregnant, Bristol, undecided between adoption and keeping the baby?, is reportedly furious; PT located and delivered ("Look at Trig!") in 4/08; Ruffles and PT overlap in Palin household through time of RNC; only the more presentable PT seen after RNC; not clear what becomes of Ruffles.
This scenario hangs together, except, as I said, for not meshing with evidence of an earlier scheme involving Paxson, etc.
It's that dang Unified Trig Theory that continues to be elusive. I forget who came up with the snowflake baby theory, sorry, and it's WAY far out there. But, okay, let's try this on: Palin hatches the scheme with Paxson et al., but has her own eggs harvested and fertilized, and then selects for DS. She goes to Bristol: my fertilized eggs will be destroyed if I don't use them, can you carry a baby for me? ("Now I'm a mother duck for that baby"?) At the same time they arrange for another snowflake baby fertilization, as back-up, Palin having an idea how much of a party girl her daughter is. Maybe Palin tells Bristol the baby can be put up for adoption, or Bristol can keep it, whatever she wishes. Bristol has no idea about the DS; when the baby is born prematurely she is thrown for a loop. Then she is furious when Palin announces she is pregnant. Ruffles turns out to be too low-functioning to be a good prop; PT is brought out of the wings. The babies look a lot alike: not twins, not the exact same age, but full brothers. This theory, unlike the others, actually does seem to hang together.

I just popped in to throw in a couple of suggestions. I am not trying to diss anyone's ideas or theories, mostly because I enjoy reading them all, and I think those could help us get to the bottom of Sarah's bottomless pit of lies. And I will admit that sometimes I get dates and such confused, but I will try to be clear.

I think the blue "airplane" baby is likely the child now known as Tripp. I think at that time his name was Trig. I really think that what we are dealing with here are two children born to Bristol Palin.

My theory: Bristol delivered her first child, named Tripp, who was very fragile, but seemed to have received very good medical care, and as a result, survived, but was later confirmed as having DS. Soon after his birth, Bristol realized that she was again pregnant. She delivered the second child prematurely in April of 2008, and the child was named Trig.

Sarah, upon learning of Bristol's second pregnancy, devised a scheme whereby she would adopt one of the babies. She may have had advice here from Paxon, who probably had a plan, should McCain secure the nomination, to blackmail McCain into placing his girl Sarah on the McCain ticket. Once baby Tripp (now Trig) had been confirmed as DS, they may have thought him the better choice.

But Sarah could not call the baby Tripp, for reasons which we are all now aware. So she stole Baby #2's name, and called him Trig. She named him for Paxon, who was her mentor and champion, and she would be vice-president with
his help.

I really don't think Sarah would go out of her way to adopt any child; these are not even people who have pets. And I really don't think that she needed any pro-life credibility. That was something that she already had in spades. She didn't need any more proof of her pioneer woman reputation; again, she had plenty. What she did need was a cover-up for the fact that Bristol had too many children for her age, and that fact did not reflect well on Sarah's mothering abilities.

I think there are a few photographs that demonstrate very well my reasoning, and I apologize for the fact that I do not know how to attach a link to my post. The pictures that stand out to me are, 1) airplane baby in blue 2) Levi in green shirt holding newborn baby 3) pictures in Palin kitchen with Levi holding different newborn. The reason I use these examples is that I think these photos were missed by the fixers, so they should be authentic.

The captions that were added by Mercede to the kitchen photos, supposedly contemporaneous to adding them to myspace, work with this theory as well: triggybear, mommy in law, baby brother. Anyway, those are just a few of my thought, feel free to pick my ideas to pieces. And I will do the same to yours, because that is the only way we may ever solve this mess.

I was the one who offered the "snowflake baby" theory -- and it is ONLY a theory. But the theory could explain a lot and could also allow Sarah to be vindicated with a DNA test (so we must be careful what evidence we ask for).

I am the mother of a "special needs" child and immediately recognized the powerful and dishonest melodrama that Palin and the GOP were unleashing on us.

I also recognized that the scenario she presented would almost certainly go unquestioned, for who wants to look so mean -spirited as to question such a heart-wrenching situation. Parents of disabled children can mobilize a huge amount of guilt in others.

Most people are emotionally terrified by the situations posed by our children and would REALLY rather not go there.

Palin was counting on the use of emotional manipulation, and has been playing that angle (quite stupidly, I think) for all it's worth, by making it appear that any attack on her story is really an attack on people with disabilities. I think very few people still buy that excuse, and some are now willing to take a harder look.

Several family members and friends of mine (in late 30s or 40s) have recently undergone IVF and/or surrogacy, and that is why it was on my mind. I thought it should be put out there as a possibility -- although one that would take a huge amount of planning and expense.

And then there is evidence that Palin was planning a "pregnancy" as early as 2006 (according to Frank Bailey), and I recalled Bush hosting the "snowflake" moms and babies at the White House at just that time. The idea was for moms to carry spare IVF embryos to "save" them from stem cell research or merely being discarded.

The "snow flake" theory would explain why Sarah never really appeared pregnant, but how "Tri-G" still manages to look like her. And it would fit in with a powerful religious trend of the time.

The odds of Bristol having produced a made-to-order DS baby at that particular time just seemed too remote. Although she could possibly have been one of the surrogates -- "a mother duck for that baby."

But, I was also thinking that, as with the Dan Rather/military documents story, this could be a hoax with a sting at the tail. DNA tests vindicating Palin as the genetic mother might be that sting for all of us, and could catapult Palin to power (maybe).

It is just a scenario to consider.

Chuck Kopp and Franklin Graham, Part 2.

Particular legislators are pushing an agenda of privatization.
Private prison company Cornell Corrections is all over the place.
"Relationships between political and corporate players, as well as political contributions, have been present throughout Cornell’s efforts to expand their business in Alaska. The wife of House Finance Committee Co-Chairman, and privatization advocate Eldon Mulder, Wendy, is an aide to Cornell lobbyist Joe Hayes. “I don’t deal with clients,” she said; the only reason she took the position was to keep the family together during the legislative sessions. She does not lobby but goes to her husband’s office in the Capitol “to pick up the mail,” she says. She did however run her own lobbying business back in 1995. And for her non-lobbying assistance, in 1999 Hayes paid her $65,000 and in 2000 she received a twenty percent increase, according to Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). Mulder himself received $2,600 from Allvest in the ‘96 elections and $2,500 toward the ‘98 elections."
Read the article. It's worth it. http://www.safetyandjustice.org/node/489

So what does this have to do with Alaska's 'God' agenda? _A captive audience_. Airplanes swoop in across the state (and I mean everywhere), loading up kids for Alsworth's Tanalian Bible Camp. Parents WANT their kids to go, feeling like they're allowing a privileged and fun opportunity. It's become a tradition in every village.
From Tanalian's IRS 990 - 1.9 million dollars in 5 years. And check this out:
"Part VI, Line 11a - Organization's process to review Form 990. No review was or will be conducted."
"Part VI, Line 19 - Governing Documents Disclosure Explanation. No documents available to the public."

Prisoners in jail have to do whatever the jailers want. 37% of the prison population are Alaska Native males. Joe Schmidt is in charge. They can make them comply with whatever they want. Who's gonna complain? To whom? Who cares?

Um, Sarah did what now, about Alaska's corruption? Sean Parnell is still the governor, still moving Sarah's agenda. Which is someone else's agenda for Alaska.

So thanks for bringing it up, one_more_time_.

Cracklin' Charlie, I've seen your theory before, but just don't see how it squares with several pieces of evidence. First, a side-by-side comparison of blue-sweater Trig and blue-black-jumper RNC Trig reveals, to my eye, the same baby. (From this I conclude that blue-sweater Trig was "prop Trig" -- it's impossible to place this photo in a progression of photos of Ruffles). Second is the baby Bristol presented in her TV interview after Tripp's birth: he might have been a month or so older than claimed, but he was not a year old. We saw other infant photos of Tripp as well: the cover of People(?), etc.

@jk

I suspect (assuming the theory is correct) Sarah is going to play this card at the very last minute to discredit her foes, vindicate herself, and carry out her "Mission From God." Sort of like the CBJ letter put out at the last minute of the last day...

Banyan, one more thought occurred to me...
I've been struck since the beginning that Bristol actually seems to be showing off her baby bump in both the green-sweater photo and the "Christmas" '07 photo: in both she is wearing tight clothes, turned sideways towards the camera. If this were your garden-variety knocked up teenager, wouldn't you think she would be careful to pose like Britta did in her wedding photos? (Not to slam Britta, who I have nothing against -- just making the point.) I figured the poses were Bristol's in-your-face gesture towards her mother. But the poses would make sense, also too, in the context of the snowflake-baby scenario.
Oh, and one more thought. Suppose there was a 1st IVF attempt that ended in a mid- or last-trimester miscarriage due to genetic abnormalities beyond DS. That could explain the mysterious NY trip that Palin made with Bristol: go find a specialist for heavy-duty prenatal genetic testing. It could also explain why the Johnston's were so relieved that Tripp turned out healthy: not knowing anything about the earlier ruse, they could have had real concerns about Bristol's propensity to produce babies with genetic abnormalities.
hmm

Banyan, we might be talking to just each other at this point, but I'm enjoying the conversation, at least :)
You're right, I think, that multiple surrogates would have been needed for the plan. Presumably they didn't want to implant multiple embryos, as is often done with IVF. Maybe Palin didn't think it through that far the first time, secure in her fairy tale universe. But then she learned the errors of her ways?
Last(?) thought for tonight: since the beginning people have hinted that the real truth beyond babygate was much sadder and darker than a mother covering for a pregnant teen, or the theories people had come up with. Maybe they've all been talking out of their hats. But I've wondered...people have come up with some awfully sad and dark theories. What could be sadder and darker than, say, Keith Johnston impregnating Bristol during a drunken party, or even by rape? Or Trig being a product of incest? How do you get more dark than that? A snowflake baby scheme would do the trick, I think.

Banyan, I do realize this is all a theory, even if I don't always say it! But you're right, a scheme like this would've been orchestrated by handlers. Didn't Chuckie once say, "Sarah doesn't call the shots"? An equivocal statement to be sure, but again, it fits. It would mean that the number of people who know the whole truth could be limited to Todd, Sarah, Bristol, the handlers (who will never talk), and medical professionals bound by HIPAA (who can't talk.) Maybe a larger people think they know the truth, but in fact bought into a manufactured truth: poor Bristol got pregnant as a result of incest or rape, we can't let the story get out. So even if people come out of the woodwork and spill the beans, they could be planted beans.
Another thought did occur to me about why Palin wouldn't have shown a DNA test if she had one: one way a snowflake hoax could be revealed is if there were incontrovertible evidence that Trig IS Palin's biological child AND she had the tubal ligation or hysterectomy that we keep hearing rumors about. Ironic to think that DNA results proving Palin is Trig's biological mother could prove to be the long-sought smoking gun!

JK and Banyan, I LOVE that you two are talking to one another here. Please feel free to continue to do so. No reason to change threads or alter course. Your theories are deep and well thought-out. Keep up the grand discussion. You both bring such insight and intelligence to it.

:-) L.

@ jk

You are right about the mysterious statements of those people who claim to "know" who the mother is and strongly hint that Bristol is involved, but then who don't really come out and say it.

I never quite thought of that before.

One thing that struck me reading the Bailey book was his use of the word "snowflake." Almost like deliberately dropping a clue.

I was really struck by his "snowflake in a blizzard" analogy and had one of those "lightbulb" moments. The word "snowflake" certainly has a special meaning among the more radical factions of the "Right-To-Life" community. (Try a Google search of snowflake babies)

I'm not at all sure IVF/(multiple) surrogacy is a correct insight on my part. While it would explain some questions, it would raise so many others.

And let me add my thanks to Laura for commenting here!

In case you guys hadn't seen this. I think you'll feel the smug...

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/08/governor-sarah-palin-running-news/

"I just walked to Capitol Hill with FNC’s Griff Jenkins to talk to Congressman Paul Ryan. En route, Griff told me that he ran a 1/2 marathon this weekend just as Governor Sarah Palin did the other day in Iowa. He then confessed…her time was 2 minutes 30 seconds faster than his."